Recovering Car From Ex

easy

Blimey diystarter7,  you like an argument, don't you ?

While nobody on here has suggested that the name on the V5 is any sort of proof of ownership,  I'm pretty sure that in a court, somebody would be asking 
"If you didn't want Miss Ex to consider the car was hers,  why did you register the car in her name,  and allow her to insure it in her name?  At the time when you bought the car and filled in the registration documentation,  did you intend it to be her car? To a reasonable onlooker that would seem to be the case.   Have you only changed your mind about ownership of the car after the relationship broke down? "  

When our son was 17 we bought a car for him to use. Although it was bought for him,  the V5 was in my husbands name,  and altho son was the main driver on the insurance, Hubby was a named driver on there too.  We kept the spare key.  From those actions alone, it was clear that the car didn't belong to our son. 

Unless the OP expressly said (preferably in front of a witness)  "this car will be owned by ME,  even tho' you are driving it,  and you are the registered keeper, it's mine"  I think it's fair for Miss Ex to consider it was a gift to her, and I think a court would decide that too.

tightauldgit

people/OH's do buy stuff for their OH but it remains the property of the person buying it.

That part there is simply not true. A gift becomes the property of the recipient as soon as it is gifted. That's the law.

The problem in a civil court is that generally people do not document 'here is a gift for you given on 12/2/1998 and to which i relinquish all ownership' nor 'i give you this lovely diamond necklace to use and to wear but it is not a gift merely a loan. I expect it to be returned'. And when people break up they suddenly change their mind on whether something was meant to be a gift after all. Hence the room for disagreement.

There are MANY legal disputes over ownership of gifts and if as you say the law always defaulted to whoever paid for it then there would be no room for dispute really. 

T.T.D

diystarter7 said:

Martin_the_Unjust said:

diystarter7 said:

tightauldgit said:

diystarter7 said:

Sea_Shell said:

diystarter7 said:

Sea_Shell said:

tightauldgit said:

diystarter7 said:

The invoce is in the OP's name so its his car 

Not necessarily. If you buy something and gift it someone then it's theirs not yours. No takesies backsies

Exactly.   Proof of purchase is NOT proof of ownership.  

I

Hello
You appear to be blindly supporting the other poster about of proof of ownership with reading what Op stated, as I said its often the invoice

Did you not read that the OP has said it was NOT a gift? So the invoice in OP's name means it's his car.

Thanks

I did read that, thanks.    

I stand by what I've written.

Thanks.   

Hi

So if you read that and still posted what you did, what evidence does the ex have??

I've told you what the evidence is and its not the v5 as you may think, its the invoice and where the money came from ie OP's accounts

There is no record of a gift. So what evidence do you have to support your baseless assumption, please?

Thanks in advance

Yeah, saying 'it wasn't a gift' after the fact when she's left you doesn't really have any legal standing. 

He bought the car - fair enough - then she apparently had sole use of it, and both keys, insurance and V5 in her name, when she left he let her take it with her. sounds a lot like he gave her the car (i.e. it was a gift) and in the absence of anything to the contrary then i wouldn't be anywhere as near certain as you that the invoice is all that matters.

If there is finance on the car then it's different but if it's been bought outright then I think it's reasonable to assume if someone buys you a car, registers it in your name and gives you sole use of it, then it's a gift unless they explicitly say otherwise. 

Of course like everything in law a lot depends on the specifics of the case you can make to the judge on the day.   

Thanks for tyring on behalf of the other poster, appreciated as I want no misunderstandings. 

So the V5 is not evidence as we all know

So you too are saying in support of the other poster that regardless of what OP stated, ie he paid for it it was his money from his account and he registered the invoice in his name annd OP clearly stated he did not gift

In a court of law, it will be the OP's word again his ex. In a court of law invoice is almost always proof of ownership unless there is written evidence then its the invoice stands. In this case you know who paid for the car and you know whose name is on the invoice and you know there is no evidence of a gift and fact is people/OH's do buy stuff for their OH but it remains the property of the person buying it.



Thanks

Just something you may wish to consider.

There is some proof that it was a gift (V5, sole use, both keys etc) although to be honest in a marriage or marriage like relationship if it was a gift or not is pretty much irrelevant, in reality it is just one of the assets to take into account when coming to a financial settlement.

Hi
Indeed, come to divorce settlement but atm, as things stand, the car is the OP's and there is no evidence to indicate differently.
Thanks

Diystarter7 let me explain to you a little as to why having the receipt is not 100% slam dunk proof it’s OP’s car.

In the UK a county court proceeding won’t take just this as evidence of ownership, on the table is the question of “is this a gift” and this “ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES” will be considered by a judge after hearing all the evidence presented. 

(Caps not shouting but for emphasis only).

Now, he can present his argument that it wasn’t a gift but a contract, a contract conducted verbally is hearsay evidence but considered all the same and his receipt for proof of ownership.

she can present her side of the proceeding by putting an element of doubt on the receipt on the receipt by saying  something like:
Judge of-course the receipt was in his name he bought it, because his INTENT was buy the vehicle for me to use to run our children round, I was and am Indigent and in negative equity with my bank see evidence in the form of my bank statement encompassing the date of this purchase showing I was in arrears at the time so transferring money to me to choose and buy it for me would cost more financially as portion of the money the applicant wanted to spend on a car would be swallowed up by my bank, therefore he used his bank and purchased under his name. He purchased the car but it was understood that he would be gifting the car to me as we have two children, I was and still am their primary parent with responsibility, it made sense to be mobile in our relationship as the children would their time mostly with me, so I was gifted the car for them and their care of them. 

I also submitted evidence in the form of text messages (or emails) detailing the details of him arranging this with me, from my perspective him using words such as “we need to get you a car so you can take of the kids and errands and shopping whilst I’m at work, and me stating my finances won’t allow it, and him staying down worry I’ll buy A car for you you don’t have to worry about it”, makes clear it’s a gift.

I also have a witness here to today to give evidence in relation to the applicant telling my witness that after we bought it and turned up at her property that he said it was for me so I can be mobile.

also judge, the insurance is in my name, the V5C also in my name I know by itself that it is not proof of ownership it’s proof of intent to gift because commonly in a relationship or marriage if you purchase a gift such as a car it goes into recipient of that gifts name as so the insurance is accurate when they ask “who is the vehicle owned by?” You can answer honestly I am, and not pay a higher premium by me saying I am not. 

The car being in my possession having the two keys master and spare, VED paid by me and maintenance of tyres and general servicing and emergency repairs and filling with fuel all paid by me is proof of ownship (evidence of garage receipts submitted) the applicants intent was to gift the vehicle to me, I took transfer of the vehicle on the day of purchase coupled with paying for its general wear and tear and maintenance and fuel is proof the applicant has no interest in the vehicle.

Granted that the applicant put it through an MOT he wanted to do that to ensure he was buying a safe car for his children, and it formed part of the gift as I was indigent, it is not regular maintenance and does not prove interest in the vehicle but interest of its safeness to place his then partner and children to be transported safely in on the road at that partially time it was MOT’d. 

So you see diystarter it’s not as simple cut as you think, you have 2 sides to a story and you only have the OP’s version. Which I believe that he only wants the car back for being vindictive because he’s hurting and want her to hurt just as much as him. 

a Judge will operate on the basis of who’s evidence is more credible, was there a contract or was it a gift and weigh this up on a balance of probability who of he believes. It’s not a he said she said scenario it’s a credibility scenario where the judge decides based on evidence oral and physical. 

Once you give someone the implied or actual verbal  intent and you deliver and time passed it’s accepted as a gift and if your gifting them an item big or small it’s hard to take it away even when you think a single document is slam dunk evidence of 100% proof you own it and think you pull that give back. 

There’s plenty of example of case law you can read just google.

retiringtoosoon

Hi, OP here. Yes the car was a gift to my ex (it was her birthday) but I’ve subsequently changed my mind since she left. Hope that clears this up.

Martin_the_Unjust

retiringtoosoon said:

Hi, OP here. Yes the car was a gift to my ex (it was her birthday) but I’ve subsequently changed my mind since she left. Hope that clears this up.

I’m pretty sure once a gift is given that is the end of it.

You could ask I suppose.

[Deleted User]

Hi,

retiringtoosoon said:

Hi, OP here. Yes the car was a gift to my ex (it was her birthday) but I’ve subsequently changed my mind since she left. Hope that clears this up.

OP, why have you now posted under a different user name?

dil1976

retiringtoosoon said:

Hi, OP here. Yes the car was a gift to my ex (it was her birthday) but I’ve subsequently changed my mind since she left. Hope that clears this up.

Hi @diystarter7 FYI! If this is indeed the OP.

tightauldgit

retiringtoosoon said:

Hi, OP here. Yes the car was a gift to my ex (it was her birthday) but I’ve subsequently changed my mind since she left. Hope that clears this up.

Then a gift is a gift and it's gone forever. 

Sea_Shell

retiringtoosoon said:

Hi, OP here. Yes the car was a gift to my ex (it was her birthday) but I’ve subsequently changed my mind since she left. Hope that clears this up.

Assuming you ARE the OP (using a different log in), then you can't change your mind about it being a gift (or not) now that the relationship has broken down.

It would have saved a lot of time if you'd have been up front about it being a Birthday Gift, at the start of the thread.


The car is not your car and never was from the moment you gifted it.    Expensive lesson learned.

Malthusian

"M'lud, I gave a car to my ex on her birthday and she won't give it back."
"You can't unilaterally take back a gift. When you hand someone an item and retain the right to take it back on demand, that's a loan."
"Did I say I gave her a birthday present? I meant loan. A traditional birthday loan. She also borrowed a cake and a card off me and I want those back too."
"Case dismissed!"
(I'm very dubious that retiringtoosoon is the OP. There are minor differences in style, but what clinched it for me is that palooza mixes up "your" and "you're", while two months ago retiringtoosoon took the mick out of someone for that error - "your correct what?")